At Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:13:47 EST, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/17/99 3:58:29 PM Central Standard Time, carlw@lisco.com
>writes:
>
><< As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create reality for
> ourselves. >>
>
>Really? What do you mean by this? Sounds a whiff like solipsism.
>
>>>As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create reality for
>ourselves. Reason and rationality are necessary tools to sharing our
>realities. As sharing reality seems to be not only a requirement of our
>make-up, but pleasure creating as well (I am not addressing cause here),
>I'll go for the path that yields me maximized pleasure, while noting that
>your pleasure may be different.<<
>
>Now its sounding like shared solipsism, or a "socially constructed" reality.
>Hmmm, interesting. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.
The phenomenologists call it intersubjectivity, or the mitwelt (with-world)
>>>I don't find a need to explain everything completely, perhaps this is why I
>have not yet found a subject where I need to close my eyes in order to to
>maintain a sense of order. In most every field or subject we work with
>unknowns. My experience is that unknowns can best be handled through logic
>and reason and not closing my eyes to anything. When the "explanation"
>becomes more complex than the phenomenon it purports to explain, it is time
>to look for the hidden strings. Explanations should always be as simple as
>possible. Although, as Einstein said, it doesn't help to make them simpler
>than they need to be.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>TheHermit<<
>
>I like your attitude on these things. It sounds very similar to my own. It
>sounds very liberating to me. It sort of puzzles me why Reed acts like these
>very same ideas are so oppressive. It makes me wonder if he and I are even
>talking about the same thing. And yet he insists that I am just "playing
>semantic games." I still don't think that we are talking about the same
>things at all.
>
>-Jake aka "MemeLab"
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher